Lee v. Kramer
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 12/14/10, ORDERING that petitioner's 24 motion to appoint counsel is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. M. KRAMER, Respondent. / Petitioner, a state prisoner who proceeded pro se in this court with a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, has filed a motion requesting the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas corpus proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In this case, findings and recommendations are awaiting review by the District Judge. It appears that the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, petitioner's November 30, 2010 request for appointment of counsel is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: December 14, 2010
CHARLENE H. SORRENTINO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHARLES EDWARD LEE, Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-1710 MCE CHS P
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?